Future of the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund: consultation analysis

5. Analysis Part C – Impact Assessments

The consultation paper noted that one of the options for the future of the SLCF would be the closure of the fund for contributions from April 2026 and the subsequent ‘wind up’ of the fund over the next financial year.

As part of these considerations, the consultation sought views on the potential impacts of closing the SLCF on different groups. Responses to the consultation questions on impact assessments is set out below.

Business and Regulation

Question 9: Do you have any information of potential business or regulatory impacts of the closure of the SLCF?

Of those who answered this question (24 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following common themes emerged:

Approved Body closure and loss of employment

The most frequently cited impact was the potential loss of employment and the winding up of Approved Bodies (ABs) that rely on SLCF funding. Respondents expressed concern that the closure would lead to redundancies and the dissolution of organisations whose sole purpose is to manage and distribute SLCF funds.

Loss of Community and Environmental Project Funding

Several responses highlighted the broader community and environmental consequences of the closure of the SLCF. This included less support for local infrastructure, environmental accessibility, and community engagement projects, which could indirectly affect local economies and wellbeing.

Administrative and Regulatory Challenges

Respondents noted that the closure would create administrative burdens, particularly around statutory reporting and asset management. There were concerns about how regulatory obligations (e.g. reporting and monitoring of projects) would continue to be met if the Approved Body responsible no longer existed.

Potential for Future Opportunities

A minority of responses suggested that the closure could pave the way for a more modern and better-targeted environmental funding mechanism. However, this was framed as speculative and dependent on the nature of any replacement scheme.

Child Rights and Wellbeing

Question 10: Are you aware of any examples of current or future impacts, positive or negative, on young people, (children, pupils, and young adults up to the age of 26) of the potential closure of the SLCF?

Of those who answered this question (23 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following impacts emerged:

Loss of Support for Youth and Community Projects

The most frequently cited concern (nine responses) was the negative impact on youth-focused and community-led initiatives. Respondents highlighted that the SLCF has been instrumental in funding play areas, skate parks, youth clubs, and educational programmes. It was suggested that closure of the fund would threaten the viability and continuation of these projects, many of which provide essential services and opportunities for young people.

Reduced Access to Environmental Education and Nature

Several responses emphasised the role of the SLCF in enabling environmental education and access to nature, particularly for children and young people. Projects funded by the SLCF often include outdoor learning spaces, nature reserves, and environmental stewardship programmes. The closure of the fund could limit these opportunities, reducing young people’s engagement with the natural world and their understanding of sustainability.

Threat to Community Infrastructure and Local Capacity

Respondents noted that the SLCF has supported the development of community infrastructure such as village halls, cycle paths, public parks, playgrounds and skate parks, which were cited as being well used by children and young people. These facilities are often maintained by local organisations that rely on SLCF funding. It was noted that the closure of the fund could lead to a decline in community capacity, particularly in areas where alternative funding is scarce.

Threat to Youth Development and Social Inclusion Projects

Respondents noted that SLCF has supported youth-focused projects offering training, social development, and inclusive activities. These initiatives were cited as particularly important in areas of socio-economic deprivation. Respondents suggested that the loss of funding could jeopardise the viability of such projects and reduce support for vulnerable young people.

“Over the years we have supported a number of youth projects providing amenities, training, social development opportunities to young people... The loss of SLCF funding to these projects will impact their future viability.”

LT funding ltd.

Environment

Question 11: Are you aware of any examples of potential impacts, either positive or negative, that the closure of the SLCF may have on the environment?

Of those who answered this question (23 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following impacts emerged:

Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat Restoration Funding

The most frequently cited concern (seven responses) was the negative impact on biodiversity and habitat restoration. Respondents highlighted that the SLCF has been instrumental in funding projects that protect endangered species, restore habitats, and support climate resilience. The closure of the fund is seen as a direct threat to these efforts, particularly at a time when biodiversity loss is accelerating.

Reduced Support for Community-Led Environmental Projects

Four respondents expressed concern that the closure of the SLCF would hinder grassroots and community-led environmental initiatives. These include projects focused on tree planting, energy efficiency, and local conservation. Without SLCF support, such projects may struggle to secure alternative funding, leading to delays or cancellations.

Two responses highlighted the disproportionate impact on island and remote communities, where the SLCF has supported waste management, marine litter removal, and local environmental improvements. Respondents suggested that the loss of this funding could lead to increased pollution, reduced environmental standards, and greater inequality.

Risk to Scotland’s Climate and Environmental Targets

Five respondents linked the potential closure of the SLCF to broader national goals, warning that it could undermine Scotland’s progress toward biodiversity, climate resilience, and net zero targets. The lack of a comparable replacement fund was seen as a major gap in the environmental funding landscape.

“Without a replacement for the SLCF, many projects will be left without viable alternatives. The result may be not just a funding shortfall, but a slowdown in progress towards national targets.”

RSPB Scotland

Other Themes

Some respondents mentioned potential positive impacts, such as the opportunity to replace the SLCF with a more modern and better-aligned fund. Others noted that the closure may encourage a shift away from landfill reliance. However, these views were conditional on the creation of alternative funding mechanisms.

Equality

Question 12: Are you aware of any examples of how the of the closure of the SLCF may impact, either positively or negatively, on those with protected characteristics?

Of those who answered this question (23 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following impacts emerged:

Loss of Accessibility and Inclusion for Disabled Individuals

A prominent theme among responses was concern that the closure of the SLCF would reduce accessibility to natural and community spaces for people with physical disabilities. Respondents highlighted how SLCF projects had enabled the creation of accessible infrastructure such as boardwalks, wheelchair-accessible paths, and beach wheelchair hire services. The loss of such funding could reverse progress in inclusive access.

Disproportionate Impact on Marginalised and Rural Communities

Several responses noted that the SLCF had been particularly valuable in rural, remote, and island communities, and underlined that these areas are often underserved by other funding streams. It was noted that these communities frequently include individuals with protected characteristics, and the loss of SLCF could exacerbate existing inequalities in access to environmental and social benefits.

Some respondents shared that their organisations had used SLCF revenues to support projects directly benefiting people with protected characteristics. The closure of the fund could hinder the continuation or development of such initiatives, limiting support for these groups.

Risk to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Principles

While not citing specific examples, a few respondents expressed concern that the closure of the SLCF could undermine broader DEI efforts. They emphasised the importance of maintaining a focus on equity and inclusion in community and environmental funding, even if direct impacts were not immediately evident.

Fairer Scotland Duty

Question 13: Are you aware of any examples of potential impacts, either positive or negative that the potential closure of the SLCF may have on groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage (such as income, low wealth or area deprivation)?

Of those who answered this question (24 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following impacts emerged:

Disproportionate Impact on Deprived Communities

Respondents expressed concern that the closure of the SLCF would disproportionately affect communities already experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. Many noted that these areas have historically benefited from SLCF-supported projects, and the loss of funding could exacerbate existing inequalities.

"The Trust has received SLCF funding to improve greenspaces and community access in a number of areas where significant proportion of the community living in deprived areas (e.g. Cumbernauld and Ayrshire) so closure of the Fund will jeopardise potential projects being delivered in these areas." Scottish Wildlife Trust

Loss of Community Projects and Facilities

Several responses highlighted the risk of losing vital community infrastructure such as parks, community centres, and recreational spaces that are often supported by the SLCF. These facilities are seen as essential for community cohesion and wellbeing, particularly in lower-income areas.

"Many RSPB Scotland SLCF-funded projects support deprived communities by improving local green spaces and providing educational and volunteering opportunities. The loss of these projects would disproportionately affect communities already facing socio-economic challenges." RSPB Scotland

Environmental and Mental Health Effects

A smaller number of respondents raised concerns about the environmental and mental health consequences of reduced investment in public spaces. Clean, accessible environments were seen as crucial for wellbeing, especially for those who may not have the means to access private or paid-for amenities.

Access and Inclusion

Some responses focused on how the SLCF has enabled inclusive access to nature and outdoor spaces for disadvantaged groups. This includes the development of travel corridors, local path networks, and other infrastructure that connects communities and promotes equitable access.

Other Themes

A few responses did not fit into the above categories. These included reflections on the broader socio-economic dynamics around landfill sites and concern that the closure of the SLCF may lead to increased deprivation if communities become less desirable places to live.

"The closure of the SLCF risks condemning communities around landfills to having more dilapidated, undesirable facilities and spaces, leading to the wealthier residents leaving, whilst those who cannot afford to leave remain stuck in increasingly undesirable areas." Sustainability Connects

Island Communities

Question 14: Are you aware of any examples of how the closure of the SLCF may impact, positively or negatively, on island communities in a way that is different from the impact on mainland areas?

Of those who answered this question (23 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which the following impacts emerged:

Disproportionate Negative Impact Due to Higher Costs and Isolation

The most common theme among responses was that island communities face significantly higher costs and logistical challenges in delivering environmental and community projects. These include increased transport costs, limited access to contractors, and fewer alternative funding sources. Respondents cited that the SLCF has been a vital, flexible funding stream that helps mitigate these unique challenges.

“Projects on islands often face significant challenges in securing funding due to their geographical isolation... the cost of implementing projects on islands is often higher because of factors like ferry and import costs.” RSPB Scotland

Loss of Support for Marine Litter and Environmental Projects

Several respondents highlighted that island communities are disproportionately affected by marine litter, much of which originates from mainland sources or marine industries. The SLCF has supported clean-up and environmental restoration efforts, and its closure could lead to a deterioration in environmental quality and community wellbeing.

Threat to Community Capacity and Local Empowerment

Respondents cited that island communities often rely on small, volunteer-led organisations to deliver projects. The SLCF has not only funded projects but also helped build local capacity and resilience. Some respondents noted its closure could weaken these fragile community structures and reduce local empowerment.

However, a minority of responses acknowledged that while the closure of the SLCF could be harmful, it might also present an opportunity to create a more tailored, island-specific funding mechanism aligned with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the National Islands Plan.

No Impact

Over half of respondents believed there would be no impact on island communities that would be different from other communities. A few respondents believed the impact would be similar across all communities or did not provide specific examples. One noted that island communities may have historically benefited more from the SLCF due to proximity to landfills.

Consumer Duty

Question 15: Are you aware of any examples of how the closure of the SLCF may impact, positively or negatively, on consumers in Scotland?

Of those who answered this question (22 respondents), the breakdown of views was as follows.

Respondents were invited to provide further detail for their answer, of which 7 responses were received. The following impacts emerged:

Loss of Access to Community Amenities and Services

One respondent cited that the closure of the SLCF’s would see a reduction in funding for public amenities such as parks, playgrounds, sports facilities, and community centres. These spaces are widely used by consumers and contribute significantly to wellbeing, recreation, and social cohesion. Without SLCF support, many of these facilities may face deterioration or closure, limiting access for local communities.

Reduced Availability of Affordable Reuse and Repair Options

Another respondent noted that the SLCF has played a key role in supporting reuse hubs, repair cafés, and community recycling initiatives. These services offer affordable alternatives to new products and are especially valuable to consumers on lower incomes. The loss of funding could lead to the closure of such initiatives, reducing access to low-cost goods and repair services, and undermining efforts to promote sustainable consumption.

Decline in Environmental Education and Consumer Awareness

One response further highlighted that the SLCF has also supported educational campaigns aimed at increasing public understanding of waste reduction, responsible consumption, and the circular economy. Without continued investment, these initiatives may disappear, weakening efforts to shift consumer behaviour toward more sustainable practices. This could exacerbate existing gaps in public knowledge and hinder Scotland’s broader environmental goals.